Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

There are so many pianists promoting these days, some very successful notable ones, and some very talented lesser knowns that I'm fans of. Everyone has their favorites, but who does everyone vote for as being the best and why?

Originally posted by keithmusic: There are so many pianists promoting these days, some very successful notable ones, and some very talented lesser knowns that I'm fans of. Everyone has their favorites, but who does everyone vote for as being the best and why? [/b]

I don't particularly like the genre name "new age", makes it sound like if you like the music you're a star worshipper or something. That being said, this type of music is by far my favorite. I've never been much into classical although my teacher before too long will have something to say about that. I know that classical is a rite of passage in learning the piano, I've only been playing for 8 months. I have not heard of Keith Jarrett, I will check him out, Winston of course. However my runaway favorite is Danny Wright www.dannywright.com also very good is David Lanz www.davidlanz.comand Kevin Kern www.kevinkern.com (legally blind)also Taiwanese pianist Mia Jang released a few CD's a while back, I have one it is excellent (Sweet Dreams) don't know what she's doing now. And of course Jim Brickman but he's so mainstream now and not considered new age. Danny Wright's music is so introspective, thought provoking, positive and beautiful. He plays much on the higher scales, I always am telling my son, "someday you're going to play like Danny". How awesome that would be.

The exceptional thing about his playing is that he picked a tune with a chord pattern that has a tendency to lock you into certain circle of fifth melodic configurations and yet he completely avoids cliches and patterns because he is spontaneously creating.

Like Tristano, his lines were not more by product of hand than mind. He has just as much technique as Peterson and Tatum, yet chooses to play flurries of notes only when integrally part of his melodic stretches, not because it's time to revert to pattern 1, pattern 2, pattern 3, etc.

In other words, his playing is free from needless embellishment that most improvising musicians must fill their lines with like using hamburger helper and breadcrumbs to make 1/4 of meat into a 1 pound meatloaf.

This is why his lines are so unique, the product of his mind, not his technical training. Though he's covering a tune in the same style that Bud Powell, Herbie Hancock, McCoy Tyner, Billy Taylor, Oscar Peterson or any other piano jazz great has covered thousands of times, his playing sounds like none of these artists at any time because he is always playing well within the headroom of his technical capabilities and is completely relaxed translating within the zone of his flow, playing in the moment.

This sets Keith far apart from the majority of improvising pianists and he's the best there is.

99% of what Oscar played, though fantastic in its own right, has its origins in either Art Tatum, practice, or muscle memorization.

Keith is always in the moment, always INSTANTLY composing, and that's true whether he's playin be-bop, one of his classical, orchestral pieces, pipe organ, or new age.

Of interest, he is scatting everything he's playing, and though not a singer, doing so with precise accuracy!! How's that for hearing what you play?

Hi disciple - thanks for this post - some of your posts verge on the metaphysical (not that theres anything wrong with that) but this analysis of KJ has helped me make sense of why I find his playing so interesting.. Ta! :-)

Originally posted by ktom: Hi disciple - thanks for this post - some of your posts verge on the metaphysical (not that theres anything wrong with that) but this analysis of KJ has helped me make sense of why I find his playing so interesting.. Ta! :-) [/b]

True improvisation involves processes that are equally psychological and musical. To tap the music of YOUR mind, to create something new out of the sum of your experiences, rather than merely replay what youve trained your hands to do, requires introspection of a transcendental level.

Keith is the epitome of this. Watch him as he plays. At times, his lines, directing the feed of what he hears and sings brings him right up out of his seat. There's no stalling, no 'er, 'uhhhh, 'you know what I'm saying', or stammering, or needless embellishments interjected while trying to figure what to play next, there's total communion with the sound he's hearing, then producing that transcends his hands and the instrument.

Keith is the epitome of what I'm referring to when I've said that when you're playing in the moment, in your zone, one gets the feeling that if you were to STOP playing, the music would still continue on its own. In reality, when I stop, the music DOES continue, because it's alive in me and always there. I just translate it at any particular time when I sit at the piano and JOIN the flow so others can hear what I hear.

This is very true of Keith's playing.

By comparison, here's a very good jazz musician, but not a brilliant improvisor. EVERYTHING she plays is repeated over and over, even her bass lines are quite static, and although she's good at what she does, her lines are quite uninspired and the byproduct of standard, watered down Jimmy Smith lines, a few Charlie Parkers, a couple of Joey DeFrancescos, and a few 1950s Coltranes to boot. Everything everybody's heard before. Listen to the difference between this and Keith's All the Things you Are as far as playing in the moment. It's all just potatos with a little meat on the side:

I agree with Euan; I have a very soft spot in my heart for Einaudi, and he is my personal favorite composer. I do recognize, though, that his works can be somewhat repetitive and simple. Which is why I like to play them.

I agree that Keith Jarrett has produced some technical masterpieces, and when you take into account that a lot (most? all?) of his work is improvisation, it makes your jaw drop. The Koln Concert is sheer genius, imo.

But my problem with Jarrett is that I like some of his work but find other pieces too frenetic and lacking in melody for my taste. I actually wouldn't call him a new age artist; he's more jazz.

So, if I could only name one individual, George Winston might end up winning my vote as "best new age pianist" in terms of technical skill and compositional ability, not to mention the instrumental role he played in establishing the genre.

Originally posted by Monica K.:[QB] I actually wouldn't call him a new age artist; he's more jazz.

This is true. His improvs embrace and combine categories. One album can sound almost orcehstral-classical,like Arbour Zena (which I believe is his crowning masterpiece), then the next, more what some might deem New Age, like Koln Concert, then jazz, a trio ("Shades") that sounds like a cross between Weather Report (fusion) and straight ahead bebop, then interject a pipe organ album that sounds like a cross between Bach and William Bolcomb, yet all uniquely his own music. Jarrett's music crosses many lines and it's always inspiredly original.

Hello all!I had formed in my mind that the "new age" category for piano or other instruments dealt mostly with the major scale or related scales (major pentatonic, minor pentatonic, and perhaps someone is making use of the modes in a stepwise melody frame of mind. My examples have been George Winston, David Lanz, Jim Brickman, and the like. Of course even George doesn't like the term "new age". He considers himself a folk pianist. If I hear jazz chords or blues licks I immediately think of jazz, blues, or one of the many evolved styles within jazz. Leaving open the idea that styles can merge and take influences from other styles. Would it be appropriate to say Keith Jarrett is more jazz than new age (for new age I think of relaxing music for spa or meditation)? I ask because I'm in learning mode and not as familiar with all of Keith Jarrett's work as other composers. I've heard the term "pop piano" and like George's use of the term "folk piano". How about "jazz/pop piano"? I'd like to think one day new descriptors would be more prominent to help up describe what at times we may have had trouble describing. Jazz seems to have broken out substyle names quite nicely, though I'm no expert about jazz.

Just to clarify a bit about Jarrett for those who aren’t too familiar with him…

Keith Jarrett has at least three distinct musical incarnations, which are virtually unrecognizable from each other:

1)Classical pianist. He has recorded Bach, Mozart, and Shostakovich

2)Jazz trio. He’s made dozens of recordings (mostly standards) with Gary Peacock and Jack DeJohnette. These recordings comprise the bulk of his output over the last twenty years.

3)Improvised solo concerts. The 1975 Koln Concert is reportedly the best-selling jazz piano album ever. The earlier Bremen/Lausanne record was the Record of the Year in multiple publications, from Time Magazine to Stereo Review. These concerts generate the majority of the most-devoted Jarrett followers, and certain passages probably result in the occasional appearance of the term “new age” in connection with his name.

He has also recorded a number of studio albums, from solo piano, organ and soprano sax to original orchestral scores

Originally posted by Sir Lurksalot: I'm quite sure that Keith Jarrett would rather place his head inside the piano and knock out the prop stick than be labeled a "New Age Pianist." [/b]

:D This is the funniest post I've read on the forum in months.

Agreed: Keith Jarrett is a JAZZ pianist, not a new age pianist.

It sure does show how much that "new age" label sucks when even the people who are legitimate new age artists go to great lengths to deny the label. Even Brickman prefers to call his music "romantic piano." David Nevue prefers "neoclassical" or simply "solo piano."

Just to be clear, my post was not intended to denigrate new age music. It was meant to emphasize that Jarrett is an extremely strong-minded, often abrasive and egotistical jazz purist. Based on many of his interviews and writings, I would hate to use that term in his presence.

Originally posted by Sir Lurksalot:2)Jazz trio. He’s made dozens of recordings (mostly standards) with Gary Peacock and Jack DeJohnette. These recordings comprise the bulk of his output over the last twenty years.

His recordings with Charlie Haden (bass) and Paul Motion (perc.) are in my opinion, his finest trio work.

New Age is such a broad and confusing term.For sure as popular music was growing and spreading it has been that kind of recovered "awareness" in misticism, naturalism and non-religious spiritualism which has allowed the melodic slow soothing music without lyrics to resurface. So this is why that kind of music is nowadays called like the social movement that triggered it. The term is not that wrong in that New Age purpose is to soothe, relax, allow introspection and meditation. Each style of music has its own social context and that of New Age music is indeed a New Age context. For example you wouldn't listen to New Age music at a party, or disco, or at the bar while having lively conversations or while cleansing the house.

I think the mistake is to label whatever melodic smooth lyrics-free piece of music as New Age even when the piece itself lacks the soothing, relaxing and meditating characteristics or in case the style is more rhythmic and lively a more introspective, spiritual, naturalistic or fantasy content required to call it a New Age piece.

If you’re unfamiliar with the term, you might be thinking this is some sort of mystical, crystal gazing style only a few robed gurus ever bother to study and play. Well let me set the record straight: Nothing could be further from the truth!

New Age Music is gentle, melodic, and inspirational. It’s a music that relaxes the soul and rejuvenates the spirit – a journey of notes leading into a joyous mystery. The type of style that just begs to be composed and improvised

I'd like to add that New Age is the style closer than any other to classic music. The reason is that no other style nowadays deals with the the descriptive and spiritual role that so much of classical music had. In the past what we know as classical music would be used, among other things, to describe the beauty of nature, to paint wonderful landscapes with the colors of sounds, to tell profecies, myths and legends, to speak of fantasy creatures and fantasy places, to meditate introspectively and to express a deep spirituality. Only New Age nowadays takes advantage of music to express these ideas and sensations.

Danny-thank you for that wonderful description of New Age music. Yiruma and Kuramoto seem to play well but I cannot say the same for George Winston or Yanni. I'm not saying their music isn't wonderful all the same... I realize virtuosity is not part of the genre, and I'm not asking it to be. Meh I don't even know what I'm trying to say here. Was the original question in this thread who is the new age pianist with the most skill? Or was the question who composes the most relazing rejuvinating music? Or was it just who is the most successful new age pianist?

We need to consider that new age pianists are also the composers of their own music. So I think the original question was what new age pianist compose the best music. New age indeed doesn't suit virtuosity and in fact even in classical music virtuosity tended to suit either more dancelike and folk pieces or more dark, strong and tormeted pieces in case of introspective ones. The there is new age which is more minimalist and new age which is a bit more complex.

I think that a good pianist with a good technique and good creativity could compose new age music which shows also technical mastery. Yanni for example is self-taught and doesn't have a formal training in piano. George Winston too is self-taught and took up piano and composition on its own. Yuruma and Ciani on the other hand had a formal training and have degrees in music. So I think it pretty much reflects other styles of music where you find musicians/composers with different trainings and skills and approached. (John Williams has a degree in piano and composition Danny Elfman is self-taught and took up music in later age)